Online Community Engagement / Clique Busting
Session Name: Conflict resolution & clickque-busting Room & time slot: 11am - F151 (saturday 11am slot 6) org's name & email: Jane Wells jane@automattic.com note taker: Leah Koerper leahkoerper@gmail.com RAW NOTES Mark - democracylab.org Jason Harris aaron Hockley Amy Stephanie Alex le Febre OWZ Austin Smith blond woman Thierry Carnez (open stack) George Dunlap Paul Mitchell Ruth Suehle Diane Steve Holden Nicolas Pastorino (2 system) Jacob Greier Leah Koerper Andre Middleton Jane Wells David Galiel - Games for Change, Elbow fish 2 Mark: why does conflict occur - around issues like: - best way to do something - purpose? why are we all here? - goals? what should we do? how? map out where agreement breaks down to fcus energy on compromise Thierry: personality conflicts can overshadow inter-project conflicts Jane: disenfranchisement: how are decisions made helps to let people vent/comment appropriately even a good decision can be resented if people feel like it is coming from teh top without community input Diane H's problem help big transitions/community anger deal with business decisions through communication, sharing reasons and acknowledging anger/frustration "we understand, maybe here are some options" Shane: support is becoming PR when they have to make unfortunate business decisions platable to communities 3 Nicolas - provieding alternatives for community is key Jane: try to get groups to undestand / buy in in advance George D: perception is key - is this just about money? was this forced? give people real, genuine reasons to understnad Mark - establishing community norms (ex. code of conduct, mission statement, self-policing) to help mediate personaity based issues Nicoals - fair karma tracking to help identify leaders Steve: make disagreementok/accepted but forcus on moving forward, forging ahead David: establish desired culture from beginning if possible- most important - use good software, etc so people are overall ahppier have edits, filters, etc. available so people can take back things said in heat of the moment or easily ignore what they don't want to see Alex - help epeople become productive through private communication to foster understanding between combatants through their problems, people can become problem solvers 4 Jane: going private helps people be less defensive, willing to compromise, willing to back down from strict sides etc Nicolas: big diffe between private & public important to discuss fully find underlying problem be persistent Andrea: voice, in-person, video communication is optimal for expressing difficult things and being an active listener Jane: find avenues for contribution for "problem" people so people can participate in a useful manner, feel useful, explore their own goals/ideas regarding the project. Take time to help people feel listened to, understood, etc. use teaching opportunities Steve: started mentorship group so people scould learn from experienced, trusted community members & help people enter community with connections and understanding 5 Thierry: code of conduct to establish rules so you can see/point when line is crossed instead of waiting for people to get pissed & explode Amy: there's no downside to having a code of conduct Dave: but it can be difficult & time consuming to establish to everyone's ideal Jane: people say "we shouldn't need one" but it's better to have than regret later not having George: dealing with people who all have serious stakes in an issue? little factions there is not always a win-win Mark: recognize decision context - can this be a win-win? Is it competition & trade-offs? Goerge: dig down for real reasons Amy: everyone wants their investment recognized Ausin: ultimately it may be necessary to break away in different groups w/divergent ideas Jane: we want a chance to weigh in, even if ultimately the decision doesn't go your way. Communicate so people know they didn't make the decision to screw with you. 6 Nicolas: elevate debate to community mission so that individual ideas, disagreements, etc. can be further clarified in terms of that community. focus decisions to overall mission. Thierry: make sure those making the decisions are representative of those effected. delegate as much as possible so the leaders aren't making all the decisions. If conflict arises, question can ?? to higher level of decision making. David: why does the community exist? one group, project, product, or issue? is the purpose of the commuity the community itself? conflict resolution & individual proble people can be more difficult to deal with here. Austin: having easily-referenced community guidelines helps. often people self-regulate per guidelines/mission/rules. Aaron: communities with purpose - articulate that purpose so we can stop, step back, ho can our decisions & actions effect our goal? is this useful? or destructive? in black: also figuring out micro purpose within decision consensus alternative - purpose related decision making Andrea: if you can't give someone a win, give them a voice" re: Thierry - for choosing governing badly that invludes factions how do you choose rep for trouble faction? most valuable or least? George: choose whoever will make best decision personal trust in decision-makers community owned Thierry: most respected, influential person those who are settling arguments already provide time for people to discuss/comment/question/express BEFORE decision is made to provide that time is very important 7 (name?): you want the leader of the faction to prevent forking, even if another faction member is acting as a rep Mark: binding decisions made online for operational business David: apps for creating governing documents with voting, editing, writing, etc.